United States of America v. Bryan Dean Coffman

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
BRYAN DEAN COFFMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-30263
D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00451-MO-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2022**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Byran Dean Coffman appeals from the district court’s order modifying the
terms of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Johnson, 697 F.3d 1249,
1251 (9th Cir. 2012), we affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
NOV 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-30263
Coffman contends that the district court erred by relying on the probation
office’s changed policy rather than an individualized assessment when modifying
the polygraph-related special condition of his supervised release. He argues that
the modified condition imposes a greater deprivation than necessary given his
successful performance on supervision, the age of his offenses, and his low
individual risk. However, the record reflects that the district court considered
Coffman’s individualized circumstances when modifying the condition. The court
specifically noted the need for risk reduction and its concerns about Coffman’s
“high levels of in-home isolation on a computer.” Moreover, the modified
polygraph condition is not unduly burdensome and is reasonably necessary for
public protection, deterrence, and rehabilitation, in light of Coffman’s criminal
history and the nature of his child pornography offense. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(d)(1), (2); United States v. Hohag, 893 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2018).
Although Coffman has performed well on supervision, the district court did
not abuse its broad discretion or exceed its statutory authority by modifying the
polygraph condition. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2); Hohag, 893 F.3d at 1192, 1194
(explaining that district courts have “wide discretion to impose conditions of
supervised release” and describing polygraph testing as a “relatively unintrusive
means of evaluating a defendant’s risk of engaging in sexual misconduct”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --